Interpretability provides a toolset for understanding how and why language models behave in certain ways. However, there is little unity in the field: Most studies use ad-hoc evaluations and do not share theoretical foundations, making it difficult to measure progress and compare the pros and cons of different techniques. Furthermore, while mechanistic understanding is frequently discussed, the basic causal units underlying these mechanisms are often not explicitly defined. In this article, we propose a perspective on interpretability research grounded in causal mediation analysis. Specifically, we describe the history and current state of interpretability taxonomized according to the types of causal units (mediators) utilized, as well as methods used to search over mediators. We discuss the pros and cons of each mediator, providing insights as to when particular kinds of mediators and search methods are most appropriate. We argue that this framing yields a more cohesive narrative of the field and helps researchers select appropriate methods based on their research objective. Our analysis yields actionable recommendations for future work, including the discovery of new mediators and the development of standardized evaluations tailored to these goals.

Automated interpretability systems aim to reduce the need for human labor and scale analysis to increasingly large models and diverse tasks. Recent efforts toward this goal leverage large language models (LLMs) at increasing levels of autonomy, ranging from fixed one-shot workflows to fully autonomous interpretability agents. This shift creates a corresponding need to scale evaluation approaches to keep pace with both the volume and complexity of generated explanations. We investigate this challenge in the context of automated circuit analysis—explaining the roles of model components when performing specific tasks. To this end, we build an agentic system in which a research agent iteratively designs experiments and refines hypotheses. When evaluated against human expert explanations across six circuit analysis tasks in the literature, the system appears competitive. However, closer examination reveals several pitfalls of replication-based evaluation: human expert explanations can be subjective or incomplete, outcome-based comparisons obscure the research process, and LLM-based systems may reproduce published findings via memorization or informed guessing. To address some of these pitfalls, we propose an unsupervised intrinsic evaluation based on the functional interchangeability of model components. Our work demonstrates fundamental challenges in evaluating complex automated interpretability systems and reveals key limitations of replication-based evaluation.